↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of success of the Ponseti method of clubfoot management in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of success of the Ponseti method of clubfoot management in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1814-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracey Smythe, Debra Mudariki, Hannah Kuper, Christopher Lavy, Allen Foster

Abstract

Clubfoot is one of the most common congenital deformities affecting mobility. It leads to pain and disability if untreated. The Ponseti method is widely used for the correction of clubfoot. There is variation in how the result of clubfoot management is measured and reported. This review aims to determine and evaluate how success with the Ponseti method is reported in sub-Saharan Africa. Five databases were examined in August 2017 for studies that met the inclusion criteria of: (1) evaluation of the effect of clubfoot management; (2) use of the Ponseti method; (3) original study undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa; (4) published between 2000 and 2017. We used the PRISMA statement to report the scope of studies. The included studies were categorised according to a hierarchy of study methodologies and a 27-item quality measure identified methodological strengths and weaknesses. The definition of success was based on the primary outcome reported. Seventy-seven articles were identified by the search. Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 14 (64%) reported a primary outcome. Outcomes were predominantly reported though case series and the quality of evidence was low. Clinical assessment was the most commonly reported outcome measure and few studies reported long-term outcome. The literature available to assess success of clubfoot management is characterised by a lack of standardisation of outcomes, with different measures reporting success in 68% to 98% of cases. We found variation in the criteria used to define success resulting in a wide range of results. There is need for an agreed definition of good outcome (successful management) following both the correction and the bracing phases of the Ponseti method to establish standards to monitor and evaluate service delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Unspecified 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,705,690
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#549
of 4,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,171
of 324,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#13
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.